Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, Dea, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, California, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, prop. 215
California — After more than a decade of roiling confusion over what California’s groundbreaking medical marijuana law and subsequent enabling legislation do and do not allow, state Attorney General Jerry Brown sought to clarify matters by issuing a long-awaited set of guidelines for patients, providers, and law enforcement. In addition to clarifying what is permissible under state law, Brown also hoped to damp down the ongoing conflict between state and federal authorities over medical marijuana in California.
Under the guidelines, medical marijuana dispensaries must operate as not-for-profit collectives or cooperatives, and are prohibited from buying marijuana from growers who are not themselves patients or registered caregivers. The only fees dispensaries can collect are those covering overhead and operating expenses.
The guidelines strongly urge patients to obtain state medical marijuana ID cards and advise police to accept such cards as proof of legitimate medical need. The guidelines also call on police to return seized marijuana to patients who are later proved to be legitimate. They prohibit medical marijuana patients from lighting up near schools and recreation centers or at work, unless employers approve.
Affirming that California’s medical marijuana law is not preempted by federal law, the guidelines further direct “state and local law enforcement officers [to] not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law” when an individual’s conduct is legal under state law.
But while providing protections to patients and non-profit dispensaries organized as co-ops or collectives, the guidelines could provide a green light for law enforcement to go after the store-front dispensaries that have sprung up like mushrooms in some areas of the state. In ballyhooing a Friday raid against a Northridge dispensary by California Bureau of Narcotics Agents, Brown signaled Monday that a crackdown could be looming.
Accusing the Today’s Healthcare dispensary and its operators of criminal behavior by operating a profitable business, Brown went on the offensive. “This criminal enterprise bears no resemblance to the purposes of Proposition 215, which authorized the use of medical marijuana for seriously sick patients,” he said. “Today’s Healthcare is a large-scale, for-profit, commercial business. This deceptively named drug ring is reaping huge profits and flaunting the state’s laws that allow qualified patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.”
California law enforcement pronounced itself pleased with the guidelines. Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, praised Brown for promulgating them. “Since Proposition 215 was passed, the laws surrounding the use, possession and distribution of medical marijuana became confusing at best. These newly established guidelines are an essential tool for law enforcement and provide the parameters needed for consistent statewide regulation and enforcement.”
Despite the apparent threat to non-compliant dispensaries and their suppliers, most medical marijuana advocates also pronounced themselves generally satisfied with the guidelines. The medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access has been working with Attorney General Brown and his predecessor, Bill Lockyer, for several years in an effort to see guidelines promulgated. ASA spokesman Kris Hermes said this week that while the guidelines are not perfect, they are a step in the right direction.
“We’ve been urging them to come out with an official statement that can direct law enforcement and stop what has been rampant disrespect for state law in some areas,” he said. “From that perspective, the guidelines are a huge step forward. They provide a blueprint for local law enforcement to develop sensible policies around patient encounters, and they recognize the validity and law-abiding nature of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. That’s huge,” said Hermes. “These guidelines are a boon for patients, police, and everyone else in the state and will greatly advance the implementation of state law.”
“Given the vagueness of the initiative and the statutes, the guidelines are pretty good,” said Bruce Mirken, San Francisco-based communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “They establish parameters within which the distribution of medical marijuana is to be treated as legitimate and legal. That’s important because some prosecutors have been adamant that there is no legal authority for dispensaries — period. This cuts the legs out from under them,” he said.
“They were about what we expected,” said Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML. “Most of the guidelines are consistent with what our attorneys have been saying and advising their clients to do all along. There are a few problem areas, but these guidelines will help fill the vacuum.”
One problem Gieringer pointed out was that the guidelines say dispensaries may possess and distribute only lawfully cultivated marijuana, and that they cannot purchase from or sell to non-members. “There is nothing in either federal or state law against purchasing marijuana, so we don’t see any legal basis for saying it’s illegal to buy from outside vendors,” he said.
Another potential problem is that the guidelines say that co-ops and collectives should document their activities and record the source of the marijuana they purchase, Gieringer said. “That is going to be problematic until we have some assurance of protection from being arrested by the DEA, and we don’t want to see the cops come in and seize the records, and then bust the growers.”
“While there is much about the guidelines that is positive, we also have some worries about some of the dispensary language,” Mirken said. “Requiring dispensaries to be non-profit is just silly. Is Jerry Brown going to demand that Walgreen’s and Riteaid become charities, too? If society thinks private enterprise and the profit motive are a logical way to distribute goods and services, why not medical marijuana?”
Still, said Mirken, the guidelines are a step in the right direction. “Given that we have all these issues here in California, anything that moves us in the direction of an orderly system with some legal clarity is a good thing. When you have local authorities who just don’t like medical marijuana and are looking for an excuse to bust people, which some of them have been doing all along, this is going to provide protection.”
But at least one Bay Area dispensary operator was not so impressed. “Let’s see how it all plays out,” said Richard Lee, proprietor of Oakland’s Bulldog Coffee Shop and SR-71 dispensary and key promoter of the Oaksterdam scene. “Hopefully, it will help people in more repressed redneck areas and not hurt people in more progressive areas like Oakland and San Francisco.”
Although Brown’s guidelines call for dispensaries to be organized as co-ops or collectives, Lee has not incorporated in that manner and has no plans to. “We’ve been here eight years,” he said. “We were here before they even passed SB 420. Oakland has a system that allows reasonable profits; it’s set up for the clubs to run like any other business, and we are fine with that. Does Jerry Brown really want to come in and mess with Oakland’s system that works?”
While the guidelines could result in a temporary decrease in the number of dispensaries as non-compliant ones either close their doors or have them closed for them by law enforcement, the end result will most likely be more dispensaries opening in areas of that state that are currently underserved because of local law enforcement or official hostility.
“I’m not too worried about a short term decrease in the dispensaries if it brings a little more rigor,” said Gieringer. “Things have been fast and loose, and we have some rogue operators who wouldn’t normally be operating in a legal market. We will lose some of those people, which could result in a short term decrease in availability, but in the medium term, this should be balanced out by the increase in availability in currently underserved areas.”
While not everyone is happy with all aspects of the guidelines, the state of California has now taken a big step toward legitimizing its medical marijuana industry, reducing the confusion surrounding the state’s medical marijuana law, and sending a strong signal to the DEA that it intends to police itself.
Source: AlterNet (US)
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, cannabis, California, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, Larry Brown, prop. 215
California — When we read the first headlines, we were concerned that California Attorney General Jerry Brown had become part of the campaign to subvert California’s medical marijuana laws by recommending that police go after so-called medical marijuana dispensaries more aggressively. Having read the actual guidelines, however, we believe they are not perfect but potentially useful — at least to state law enforcement people who want to do their job properly rather than seeking to nullify the law.
Our main problem with Brown’s guidelines has to do with his contention, as stated in the summary, that the “guidelines affirm the legality of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, but make clear that such entities cannot be operated for profit.” Proposition 215, the initiative approved by voters in 1996, does not ban profit, and that law can only be changed by a vote of the people, not by a legislative enactment or a set of guidelines from the attorney general.
That issue will no doubt be settled through litigation, as have many of the issues that created the circumstances that made it advisable for the attorney general to issue guidelines to clarify the legal climate. California courts have already affirmed, for example, that limits on the number of plants a patient may possess amount to an illegitimate amendment of Prop. 215 and therefore have no legal standing. The stipulation in the attorney general’s guidelines that dispensaries must be nonprofit cooperatives or collectives rather than profit-making enterprises is likely to suffer the same fate.
That quibble aside, Brown’s guidelines are useful and constructive. They make it clear that California law permits patients with a valid recommendation from a physician to possess, use and acquire marijuana, and that dispensaries that keep proper records and exist to serve patients rather than being fronts for illicit drug distribution are also legal. Kris Hermes of the patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access says he thinks most dispensaries already follow Brown’s guidelines, and some that don’t will require only a few tweaks to be completely legal.
The main problem is that marijuana is still completely prohibited by federal law, and federal agents still have the power to enforce that law. As the U.S. Supreme Court and several lower courts have acknowledged, however, the fact that federal law is still utterly unreasonable has not invalidated California law. State and local officials are duty-bound to enforce state law, not federal law.
Attorney General Brown’s guidelines should make this admittedly sometimes confusing task a little easier. Now it is up to local law enforcement agencies to follow them in good faith and leave federal law enforcement to the feds.
Note: State guidelines for dispensaries are helpful.
Source: Appeal-Democrat (Marysville, CA)
Website: http://www.appeal-democrat.com
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, California, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, Oakland
California — Even as state Attorney General Jerry Brown was preparing to release new medical-marijuana guidelines praised by advocates, his narcotics agents were busting a Southern California dispensary.
Mixed messages? Not necessarily. Both Brown and medical marijuana advocates say the new guidelines issued Monday finally flesh out the state’s notoriously vague 1996 Compassionate Use Act and pose a threat only to illegal drug dealers using the voter-approved medical marijuana law as a smoke screen.
“We’ve always believed that dispensaries should be regulated as opposed to the ‘Wild, Wild West’ situation,” said Americans for Safe Access Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who conferred with the state on these guidelines. “Many, if not most, of the clubs are already in compliance, and I think in the not-so-distant future the vast majority of them will be. They wanted guidelines too, so they’d know what to do to comply with California law.”
The most important part of these guidelines are their recognition that storefront medical marijuana dispensaries can operate legally, Elford said Thursday.
“It’s our view, then, that localities passing outright bans on dispensaries are acting contrary to California law,” he said.
Brown doesn’t necessarily agree.
“I don’t want to go beyond the guidelines,” he said Friday, adding local dispensary bans are “a whole other question that I have to talk to my lawyers about, I don’t want to give an opinion off the top of my head.”
Several Bay Area cities, including Concord, Dublin, El Cerrito, Fremont, Hercules and Livermore, have the sort of dispensary bans of which Elford spoke. Concord Senior Assistant City Attorney Mark Boehme said Friday he hasn’t fully reviewed the guidelines yet — “and that’s all they are: guidelines, they’re not legally binding” — and nobody has contacted the city about challenging the legitimacy of its 2005 dispensary ban.
Elford also said the guidelines send “a clear message to the federal government that dispensaries are here to stay, and “… that they should stop busting dispensaries because we can police are own.”
Fremont City Attorney Harvey Levine said, “Marijuana distribution violates federal law, and last time I looked, it doesn’t get you in trouble to abide by federal law.”
Yet most recent federal raids have targeted dispensaries, which federal authorities claim are criminal enterprises that wouldn’t meet Brown’s new criteria, anyway.
And, asked whether it’s significant that Brown issued the guidelines just a few days after his Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement raided a Northridge marijuana dispensary, Elford replied, “I hope not “… I don’t know about the timing.”
Brown said the only thing to read into the timing is that “we’ve been looking at some of the clinics that are flagrantly violating the law.” The Northridge club was raided as an outgrowth of another, unrelated investigation, he said, but other clubs are under scrutiny.
Many communities remain antagonistic to dispensaries, he noted. “In the Bay Area you don’t feel the same intensity as when you’re talking to people in Riverside and San Bernardino and San Diego and parts of the valley.”
Brown’s 11-page document says a collective dispensary can’t be operated for profit and must have a defined organizational structure including detailed records proving users are legitimate patients with doctors’ recommendations.
“The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members,” the new guidelines say. “The cycle should be a closed circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members. To help prevent diversion of medical marijuana to nonmedical markets, collectives and cooperatives should document each member’s contribution of labor, resources, or money to the enterprise. They also should track and record the source of their marijuana.”
Dispensaries, for example, “that merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating the business owner as their primary caregiver — and then offering marijuana in exchange for cash ‘donations’ — are likely unlawful.” Excessive amounts of marijuana and cash; failure to follow local and state laws applicable to similar businesses, such as licenses and tax payments; weapons; illegal drugs; sales to or purchases from non-members; and distribution outside California are red flags for law enforcement, the guidelines say.
Elford said the “closed circuit” idea aligns with Americans for Safe Access’ interpretation of Senate Bill 420, a 2003 law that tried to flesh out a structure for implementing and obeying the 1996 law. And the guidelines crystallize protections for individuals as well, directing police on when it is and isn’t appropriate to make marijuana arrests of people with state- or local-issued ID cards or doctors’ recommendations,” he said. “We will have a very aggressive campaign to make sure localities comply with the guidelines as well as dispensaries.”
Brown is running for governor in 2010, so this is a good time both to flex some “tough on crime” muscles — the Attorney General’s job, after all — while also mending fences with advocates for a cause still supported by most Californians. But Brown said he was only heeding the call of local law enforcement.
“It clarifies the rules and makes it easier for law enforcement to do their jobs “… and the users and advocates are happy because it re-stated what is permitted by the initiative and the statute,” he said. “It did what law is supposed to do — it set the ground rules for action both by individuals and by the government.”
Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, California, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, Eureka
CA — California Attorney General Jerry Brown passed out an 11-page “road map” for medical marijuana patients recently and hopes everybody will obey the new rules of the road.
After a dozen years of sparring, state and federal authorities, have new guidelines to help legitimate patients avoid arrest. The new directive also spells out how to distinguish legal medical marijuana operations from illegal cultivators and criminal middlemen, which is supposed to make it easier for everyone involved.
Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, a pro-medical marijuana group, told the Los Angeles Times recently that, “This is huge!” Then went on to say, “Hopefully this will send a message to the federal government that California doesn’t intend to deter from the course it has set.”
I hate to be the one to burst bubbles about the feds buying into this latest attempt to get them to be reasonable, but if anyone thinks this will make any difference to them then they must believe in the tooth fairy.
However well intentioned, the truth of the matter is the feds have, and will continue to, tell California lawmakers and voters how things are going to be. They’ll keep right on busting people and California has been helpless to stop them thus far.
When Brown produced his new road map towards tolerance he must have forgotten some things. For starters, the feds go by their own speed limits, and are tools of a failed Drug War against marijuana that seems to have no end in sight.
So far the feds have happily ignored other guidelines and raid wherever, and whenever, they feel like going for a drive. Even though an unlikely coalition of police and medical marijuana activists welcomed the new “road map” don’t expect the feds to stay on the same road with them.
The past has clearly shown the feds contempt for what Californian’s voted for and approved years ago. They ignore our lawmakers, and go after our cities who try to carry out the will of the voters.
I know the new guidelines suggest that people sign up for a state sanctioned medical marijuana card that they can produce when confronted by authorities (spell that feds), but I think that would be a bad idea. How long do you think a list like that would be safe from the feds, who we all know play by their own rules of the road?
The new guidelines are supposed to explain the difference between for-profit operations (the bad guys), and non-profit operations. A laundry list with checkmarks spells out who’s been naughty and who’s been nice for state police, and the feds, to use.
Basically, the premise is that drug cartels are taking over medical marijuana dispensaries, and the new guidelines give the green light to authorities to bust them. As far as I can tell, the authorities have been busting them — and legit operations — for a long time now.
Some medical marijuana activists are really happy to see this move by California’s top law enforcement official, and if reports in the newspapers are true, so are the police. While these two groups are patting themselves on the back the feds are silent about this new tact to keep them on the same road as the rebellious California drivers.
On one hand I’m glad to see the fight continues to give Californian’s what they want, and that a top dog like Brown is willing to wrestle with the big boys from Washington D.C. On the other hand, it doesn’t take much imagination to see this latest attempt is just another battle in the war for state’s rights. At what point are the feds going to give up and recognize that their ridiculous war on marijuana is going nowhere, and admit it isn’t a Class One drug? When will they go after the real druggies who use meth, cocaine, heroin, and dozens of other substances that are Class One drugs that really threaten this country?
Where’s the war on meth? Where’s the war on legal prescription drugs being abused by our youth? Where is the war against so-called designer drugs?
There’s no doubt in my mind that there are people “working the system” that shouldn’t be operating cannabis clinics. They do need to be shut down, because they are giving the legit clinics a bad name. And, I want to think this latest attempt at slowing the feds down will work.
The problem is things have to change at the top. The question now is which one of the presidential candidates would honor Californian’s right to medical marijuana?
Personally, I wouldn’t bet on either of them. Maybe someone should ask McCain and Obama how they feel about state’s rights?
As It Stands, since voters approved Prop. 215, the road has been full of potholes!
Dave Stancliff is a columnist for the Times-Standard. He is a former newspaper editor and publisher.
Source: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)
Website: http://www.times-standard.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, California, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, Los Angeles, Jerry Brown, Proposition 215
CA — California Attorney General Jerry Brown has ordered a crackdown on medical pot clubs that are selling the drug for big profits.
The move puts the state a bit more in line with the feds in dealing with the explosion of questionable marijuana dispensaries since the passage of Proposition 215 more than a decade ago.
The first target was Today’s Health Care club in Northridge (Los Angeles County), which agents from the state Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement raided over the weekend. The club owner and an alleged middleman were booked on drug-dealing charges.
Brown said Tuesday he would “not be surprised” to see similar raids here in the Bay Area.
“The voters wanted medical marijuana dispensaries to be used for seriously ill patients and their caregivers - not as million-dollar businesses,” Brown said.
In recent years, pot club raids have been conducted mainly by federal authorities who don’t recognize Prop. 215, the initiative California voters passed in 1996 to let patients use cannabis to treat what ailed them. Although medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law, the feds say many of their targets were actually sham outfits that were dealing marijuana for, shall we say, nonmedicinal uses.
This week, Brown issued an 11-page directive laying out guidelines that medical marijuana cooperatives must follow to comply with Prop. 215.
Among them: Sell only to legitimate patients. Operate as nonprofits. Buy pot only from fellow cooperative members at prices that cover cost, as opposed to professional growers out for big bucks.
“We are not out to harass legitimate clubs,” Brown said. “The targets are those clubs that are part of a larger criminal operation where medical marijuana winds up being sold on the street and contributing to crime and violence.”
Brown’s Rules on Medical Marijuana
They’re more than a decade overdue, but the guidelines on medical marijuana issued this week by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown could finally help divide the gray area in which the state’s growers and dispensers operate into clearer shades of black and white.
Brown’s 11-page directive is aimed at giving police the ability to distinguish between criminals and legitimate medical marijuana sellers under state law, as well as protecting patients from arrest.
It won’t stop federal drug enforcement agents from raiding law-abiding dispensaries and prosecuting innocent business owners whenever they see fit, but it will make such raids harder to justify — and might ramp up the pressure for more sensible federal marijuana policies.
When California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 215 in 1996, allowing the sale and use of marijuana for people with demonstrated medical needs, it set off a host of consequences both positive and negative. As voters intended, thousands of people suffering from AIDS, glaucoma and other serious ailments now have access to a safe, legitimate treatment. Yet as voters didn’t intend, the state is now riddled with dispensaries that employ on-site doctors who will write a prescription to nearly anyone who walks through the door, while places such as Humboldt County have been invaded by criminal elements running underground grow houses to supply these middlemen.
Most of the negative consequences can be attributed to the gap between state and federal marijuana laws. The fact that even sellers considered legitimate by the state can be prosecuted and ruined by federal agents encourages black-market dealers, who endanger their communities by ignoring fire codes, selling to healthy minors and fighting turf wars with other dealers. The centerpiece of Brown’s directive is its insistence that medical marijuana sellers must operate as nonprofit collectives or cooperatives, and the marijuana they sell must be grown by state-certified patients or caregivers. That will empower municipal police to weed out the bad guys.
Overall, Proposition 215 has done more good than harm. In addition to marijuana’s medical benefits, its legitimate sale brings in $100 million a year in tax revenues, and even though it can be abused by users, it isn’t demonstrably more dangerous to society than tobacco and alcohol. The state’s new guidelines will help reduce the measure’s harmful side effects, but the only long-term solution is for the feds to stop the medical marijuana raids and leave California law enforcement to California officers.
Note: New guidelines on legal pot use are a welcome shield for Californians with medical needs.
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, Hawaii
Hilo, Hawaii — Despite Gov. Linda Lingle’s veto of a measure that would have tightened gaps in Hawai’i’s medical marijuana laws, state lawmakers vowed yesterday to reintroduce legislation in the upcoming 2009 session.
“We had this bill to address problems with our law,” said Rep. Joe Bertram III, D-11th (Makena, Wailea, Kihei). “Our state law is so vague that patients don’t know how to get medical cannabis for legitimate use.”
Lingle’s veto of the bill last month left muddy issues that a task force would have aired: legal distribution, transportation and how federal and state laws interact, Bertram said.
Bertram and Rep. John Mizuno, D-30th (Kamehameha Heights, Kalihi Valley, Fort Shafter), yesterday invited law enforcement officials, physicians, a law professor and members of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai’i to air their concerns that will be melded into bills for the upcoming legislative session that will begin in January.
To be effective, a state law must remove criminal penalties for patients using or possessing medical marijuana, Bertram said.
Patients and primary caregivers on an approved list are exempt from state law prohibiting marijuana possession, but not federal law.
Hawai’i is one of 12 states that have laws allowing qualified patients to use marijuana. Today more than 4,000 patients are registered with the state Narcotics Enforcement Division and are allowed to legally grow and use the drug.
Hawai’i was the first state to allow medical use of marijuana by a law enacted in 2000.
Snipped
Complete Article: http://drugsense.org/url/6Hx0Ad8D
Source: Honolulu Advertiser (HI)
Website: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, seattle
Tumwater, Thurston County — More than 100 activists who jammed a state Health Department hearing Monday to protest proposed medical-marijuana limits won at least a minor victory: getting more time to make their case.
Responding to concerns by advocates, Assistant Health Secretary Karen Jensen extended until 5 p.m. Friday the deadline for comments on a proposed rule to limit medical-marijuana users to possessing 24 ounces of cultivated marijuana, six mature plants and 18 immature plants.
The action came at a 2-½-hour hearing in which about 50 patients, doctors and other marijuana supporters blasted the proposal as unfair, unrealistic and unduly influenced by law-enforcement agencies.
“We’re not criminals. We’re patients,” said Melissa Leggee, of Spokane. “We just want to be left alone to do what we need to do to survive.”
Leggee said she uses marijuana to ease chronic pain, irritable bowel syndrome and other conditions.
Dr. Karen Hamilton, of Redmond, who has treated patients helped by marijuana, said the proposal would “effectively take treatment out of the doctors’ hands,” adding that there is no “one-size-fits-all” appropriate marijuana dose.
Speaker after speaker said six mature plants can’t possibly provide the amount of marijuana most patients need to combat pain, nausea and symptoms of more than a dozen ailments the drug is used to treat. As a result, they argued, users would need to find drug dealers to augment their supply.
“You’re going to make everyone in this room a felon,” if the proposed limit is adopted, Steve Sarich, of Kirkland, told the panel of Health Department officials. Sarich is director of CannaCare, which provides legal assistance and starter plants to patients.
Lawsuit Filed
Sarich and another activist, John Worthington, of Renton, filed a lawsuit Friday in Thurston County Superior Court that they hope will force the state to reclassify marijuana, now on a list of “Schedule I” drugs deemed to have no valid medical use.
Sarich said the state’s old drug law, which contains that listing, should be superseded by Initiative 692, passed in 1998, which legalizes marijuana for medical purposes.
The initiative, approved by nearly 59 percent of Washington voters, said patients with valid certification by a physician should be allowed to possess a 60-day supply of marijuana but contained no definition of what quantity that is.
Last year, the Legislature directed the Health Department to spell out an acceptable amount.
Several speakers Monday criticized Health Department staffers for not sticking with an earlier draft proposal, which would have allowed a user 35 ounces of harvested marijuana and a 100-square-foot growing “canopy.”
That proposal was changed after Gov. Christine Gregoire’s policy analysts urged the Health Department to get input from law-enforcement agencies and medical experts, who were scarcely represented at the workshops on the draft proposal.
Staffers for Gregoire also told Health Department officials the amount appeared to be on the high side.
The change prompted Troy Williams, of Clark County, to remark that department officials should “stand up, have some courage, and tell the governor to shove it.”
Jensen said she expects the agency to take about a month to evaluate comments and come up with a rule set by Health Secretary Mary Selecky.
If substantial changes are made to the current proposal, Jensen said, a new round of comments would be solicited.
Target of Raids
Despite the Washington initiative, possession, cultivation and sale of marijuana remain illegal under federal law. Some advocates for medical marijuana have found themselves the target of raids by law enforcement, which they say violates their rights not just to legal pot but to freedom of speech.
The homes of both Sarich and Worthington were raided early last year. Marijuana plants were seized at each man’s home, but neither was formally charged.
Jeanne Ferguson, of Seattle, executive director of “Grammas for Ganja,” said the controversy would disappear if marijuana were legalized. “The plant should be free to be grown in your backyard, next to your broccoli and carrots.”
Outside the Health Department’s Tumwater offices during Monday’s hearing, marijuana backers set up a blue tent in which certified patients could “medicate.”
Activists said state staffers had asked them not to set up the tent but did not interfere once it was in place.
Information from The Seattle Times archives is included in this report.
To read & comment on the Health Department’s proposed limits for medical marijuana see: http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana
Complete Title: State Extends Time for Comments on Medical-Marijuana Limits
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: hemp, ganja, marijuana, medical cannabis, cannabis, medical marijuana, California, weed, pot, hashish, skunk, Sacramento
Sacramento, CA — For the first time in the dozen years of turmoil since state voters legalized medical marijuana, California’s top law enforcement official stepped into the fray Monday with new guidelines designed in part to quell the ongoing friction between the state and federal authorities.
Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown issued an 11-page directive intended to help legitimate patients avoid arrest while giving police the tools to distinguish legal medical marijuana operations from illegal cultivators and criminal middlemen.
He suggested his new “road map” would serve as a shield against the federal government, which has waged war against the state’s pot rules by conducting raids and mounting court challenges.
“Hopefully the feds will back off in instances where people are really following these guidelines,” Brown said Monday in a telephone interview.
The guidelines affirm the legality of many of the state’s medical marijuana dispensaries, but only those operated as collectives or cooperatives and not in business for profit.
“Clearly there have been abuses, places that served as big fronts for illegal drug dealing,” Brown said. “This will help get criminals out of medical marijuana.”
An unlikely coalition of police and medical marijuana activists welcomed the new guidelines, the first substantial directive from a state agency since voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996.
“As far as I’m concerned, I give this two thumbs up,” said Kevin Reed of the Green Cross, a collective in San Francisco. “If you’re in it for profit, you shouldn’t be in medical cannabis.”
“This is huge,” said Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, a pro-medical marijuana group. “Hopefully this will send a message to the federal government that California doesn’t intend to deter from the course it has set.”
The federal government maintains a strict prohibition against marijuana as medicine, and for more than a decade it has made California — which has an estimated 200,000 cannabis-using patients — the principal beachhead in the battle against medical marijuana.
Federal officials at the president’s Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration did not return calls for comment.
Police, meanwhile, welcomed Brown’s guidelines, saying they shed light on what had often seemed to them a shadowy world.
“We have been operating in the dark for many years,” said Jerry Dyer, Fresno’s chief of police and president of the California Police Chiefs Assn.
Dealing with medical marijuana patients and dispensaries, he said, “has been like trying to hit a moving target. This allows us to know what the target is.”
Brown’s guidelines urge patients to apply for state-sanctioned medical marijuana ID cards — and advise police to accept authenticated cards as proof of medical need.
Patients are prohibited from using cannabis near schools and recreation centers or at work, unless an employer gives permission. Police, meanwhile, must return seized cannabis to patients who are later proved legitimate.
Brown takes a notably hard line on for-profit dispensaries.
Scores of storefront operations have sprouted up, often with business owners running virtual emporiums of cannabis.
Under the attorney general’s guidelines, they must operate as not-for-profit collectives or cooperatives, and establishments are prohibited from buying marijuana from illegal, commercial growers. Instead, the marijuana must be grown by patients or their caregivers, with fees limited to covering overhead and operating expenses.
Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy project questioned the nonprofit distinction, saying, “The last I heard, Walgreens isn’t a charity.”
But the rules essentially give police a green light to raid for-profit storefront dispensaries.
The guidelines also say that a dispensary that signs up patients after they simply fill out forms making the owner their primary caregiver is “likely unlawful.”
They suggest that investigating officers be alert to signs of mass production and illegal sales, including “excessive amounts” of marijuana and cash, weapons and other indicators of criminal activity.
“We know that cartels are controlling many of the medical marijuana dispensaries operating for profit,” said Dyer, the Fresno police chief.
“I’m hopeful the state will partner with local police and the feds to shut down the cartels.”
Note: Jerry Brown outlines steps to help patients and dispensaries stay within the law, help police know when to step in and, it’s hoped, keep the federal government at bay.
Complete Title: California Attorney General Issues Medical Marijuana Guidelines
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
